Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[WoundedDeep]

Equivocating on the word "law as if it was prescribed instead of described? Im sorry to say mate, but to espouse such mumbo jumbo clearly demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about.

It is not equivocating, it is common sense. Anything that can be described as running by a set of laws is prescribed/created/invented by an independent external party. To reject this is to reject common sense. I don't think there is a need to say more.

Really? Biblical myths are confirmed by other myths, is that really your standard of verification?

Second time words are put into my mouth, I already said myths don't verify anything. But neither do your statements verify that biblical accounts are myths.

Can an a-santa clausist be his own santa?

As a Christian I presume you reject the supreme Maori god IO. You say the hebrew god itself inspired you directly.
As a NZ Maori, what would you think if I say to you, that you are relying on yourself, you pray to a false god and claim guidance from it, therefore you are being your own god, because you reject IO.

Would you acknowledge and give me any consideration for pointing this out to you. Or would you simply dismiss it?

IO is believed by the Maori people as one supreme God, so it is your part to convince me that IO is a different God from the one I believe and is more powerful. But as I have read, Maori's beliefs do not seem to conflict with the biblical accounts of history and therefore it is entirely possible that they believe in the same God Noah believed but merely called Him by a different name.

Would you acknowledge that it is entirely possible that Maori and Christians believe in the same supreme God?

Gullibility and credulity are considered undesirable qualities in every department of human life,except religion. (Hitch)

You do understand that the theists who crashed their planes into buildings claimed that God inspired them also. They died in their beliefs.

And the authenticity of your claims are no different to other religious claims.

Then let me tell you a group of early Christians, called the Bereans, tested what they heard from the disciples and examined everything they said to determine their truth. Believing in the true God does not devoid people of reason and careful study, in fact God encourages people to seek and test the truth.

To be able to believe in a god to the point that one can believe that killing others without any reason is a sacred thing shows the signs of a passive mind wholly incapable of moral reasoning. True Christians, on the other hand, exercise their minds to discern good from evil, truth from lies and test everything they see through the use of moral reasoning.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Because you reject the Koran for being derivative, but accept the NT despite being derivative.

Koran contains teachings that are wholly against the teachings of both OT and NT. No such problem exists in the combined OT and NT. Would you accept the Koran if you knew its beliefs borrow from external beliefs and yet conflict with them at the same time?

You do not seem to have given much consideration to the evidences of the Koran or Helgi's saga or the Upanishads. And you seem to regard the belief you already hold as true. By your own definition, you are prejudiced.

How do you know I have not examined the Koran and the beliefs of Islam? I even went as far as to read up about how Muhammad got his revelations. Unfortunately, the way he got his supernatural revelations is clearly described in the Scriptures as demonic oppression and possession. Since you discount the supernatural realm, I see no point in discussing it in great details.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Only through contortions and distortions of the OT, devised by Christian apologists.

You clearly don't understand the relationship between OT and NT. OT is God's covenant with the Jewish people, His physical Israel (consisting of the Jewish race) NT is God's covenant with Christians, His spiritual Israel (consisting of all believers of the Gospel). This new covenant is foretold in Jeremiah 31:31 centuries before Christianity came.

 

[bhsmte]

John is not the direct author, but he is well alive even after the 4 Gospels are finished. He was specifically mentioned in the Book of Revelation, which was written when he was on the island of Patmos, a real place in history where Romans banished their criminals and worked them like slaves. Not only was he alive, but many others who were either closely associated with him or had been witnesses of Christ like he was. If the Gospels were problematic, they would know about it. Whoever penned the Gospels either heard directly from the disciples of Jesus, or copied from the existing written records of first hand testimonies. Modern translations are based on ancient texts penned by these authors, not new inventions based on people living centuries later like you falsely claim.

Neither you nor any modern historian have any concrete evidence to discredit the Gospels, and I find it strange you think it is possible to convince people who have life changing experiences with God and/or who had studied the Gospels more thoroughly than you did that what they read is false and unreliable. You should be studying the ancient texts yourself instead of relying on some man made tales of the fallacy of Gospel texts, and decide for yourself what is true.

As i have stated, you clearly have not investigated the work and opinions of nt scholars and historians from any type of objective view point.

 

[Smidlee]

As i have stated, you clearly have not investigated the work and opinions of nt scholars and historians from any type of objective view point.

Anyone who does will know the early church fathers worked hard in identifying the authors of the Gospels and other books of the OT. For every reason we have to doubt the authors of the Gospels we have even more reason the Gospels were written by the authors the early fathers assign to them.

 

[Colter]

"Human things must be known in order to be loved, divine things must be loved in order to be known."

Even if man were transported to the geographical location of God the Father on paradise, he still would not be capable of seeing him. God is a spiritual being that far transcends animal man in every way.

The closest thing for us to see God is in his Son who incarnate on the earth 2,000 years ago. Even now his spirit is among us.

 

[WindStaff]

God remains invisible for a very good reason- to weed out the willingly obedient from the wicked.

If God were visible, that will wouldn't be truly potent. People would be obedient simply out of knowing God rather then in faith, which is where the true will of obedience is tested.

What is largely forgotten about this is the reality that men are fallen- God was very visible before mankind fell into disobedience. If one cannot realize their disposition as essentially being cursed by sin, then one will never even begin to see God.
And that's a bit of a problem for atheists, who won't do the one thing they need to do to see God, but will nonetheless argue.

 

[variant]

It's much hard to get people to eat a plate of rotten ,smelly, spoiled food . It's much easier to poison someone with a great tasting and looking plate of food.

I'm at a loss for relevance. Please expand on what you mean here.

 

[Davian]

- the stories of their martyrdom are fabrications
- altruism; they died to protect someone else, such as family members

Unfortunately, none of your analysis above is verified.

My statements require no verification. They are simply possibilities that render martyrdom an invalid method for establishing the veracity of ones' beliefs.

In fact, they are verified as false by historical facts. Let's not go in continuous loops.

The loop is caused when you allude to facts that you are unable to provide.

 

[Davian]

My point was that God is apparent and detectable, but some choose to close their eyes to Him so that they will feel justified in saying He is not apparent to them.

Is this deity of yours "apparent and detectable" in a manner that can be differentiated from self-deception?

 

[WoundedDeep]

My statements require no verification. They are simply possibilities that render martyrdom an invalid method for establishing the veracity of ones' beliefs.

The loop is caused when you allude to facts that you are unable to provide.

You did not understand the reason that I talked about martyrdom in the first place. The premise for talking about martyrdom is that no matter what evidence is presented that support Christianity, prejudiced people will always reject the evidence. This is undeniable reality.

The loop is caused because people refuse to acknowledge that what happened is a reality and repeat unsubstantiated possibilities as though they are evidences. Furthermore, you have no proof yourself that Christian martyrdom existed for the reasons you stated. In fact, your notion that Christians died to protect their family goes against the definition of martyrdom itself. Martyrdom always involve dying for a religious belief, any death short of this reason is not martyrdom.

 

[WoundedDeep]

As i have stated, you clearly have not investigated the work and opinions of nt scholars and historians from any type of objective view point.

The fact remains that NT scholars' and historians' work in the recent decades or centuries are not any more reliable than the works of ancient church fathers. In fact, seeing that most if not all of the scholars who discredit the Scriptures do not actually know the original texts themselves, it makes their work much less credible as evidences against Christianity.

 

[WoundedDeep]

What do you mean by "start on their own"? Here is an example of something that, depending on your meaning of it, "started on its own," without the need to invoke any supernatural beings:

I mean it sets its own way of functioning. As much as you want to deny, even the thing you show me did not set its own functions. But since you discard your reasoning and common sense, you will not understand.

 

[Davian]

You did not understand the reason that I talked about martyrdom in the first place. The premise for talking about martyrdom is that no matter what evidence is presented that support Christianity, prejudiced people will always reject the evidence. This is undeniable reality.

Have you considered that the evidence presented is not convincing? There is no objective, testable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of gods, is there?

The loop is caused because people refuse to acknowledge that what happened is a reality

The burden is on you to show that these things happened in reality. You have not met that burden.

and repeat unsubstantiated possibilities as though they are evidences.

Possibilities do not need to be substantiated. They only have to be possible.

Furthermore, you have no proof yourself that Christian martyrdom existed for the reasons you stated.

I do not require proof for my statements to be valid.

In fact, your notion that Christians died to protect their family goes against the definition of martyrdom itself. Martyrdom always involve dying for a religious belief, any death short of this reason is not martyrdom.

All that is needed is the perception of dying for a religious belief, not actual belief.

And you do not need an actual death for there to be a story of martyrdom. Stories may be exaggerations or complete fabrications.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Have you considered that the evidence presented is not convincing? There is no objective, testable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of gods, is there?


The burden is on you to show that these things happened in reality. You have not met that burden.


Possibilities do not need to be substantiated. They only have to be possible.

I do not require proof for my statements to be valid.


All that is needed is the perception of dying for a religious belief, not actual belief.

And you do not need an actual death for there to be a story of martyrdom. Stories may be exaggerations or complete fabrications.

You use possibilities to refute me, claiming that you don't need proof. But yet you demand I give proof for my statements, how is that fair?

Since you talk about possibilities, I can say that God's existence is as much a possibility as those you brought up, if not more. I do not require proof for my statements to be valid.

I see no point in discussing anything else when all you are interested in using against me are your "possibilities", even to the denial of history and modern reality of Christian martyrdom in the Middle East. You attempt to leverage yourself to a position that is unfair to me, and I have decided it is profitless to continue.

Truth will confront all one day, I hope you come to know it before then.

 

[Davian]

You use possibilities to refute me, claiming that you don't need proof. But yet you demand I give proof for my statements, how is that fair?

Who promised you fair?

Since you talk about possibilities, I can say that God's existence is a possibility. I do not require proof for my statements to be valid.

No, but you are required to define "God" in some testable, falsifiable manner, otherwise the statement is incoherent.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Who promised you fair?

No, but you are required to define "God" in some testable, falsifiable manner, otherwise the statement is incoherent.

Who said possibilities require definitions? Furthermore, for a human to attempt to define God who is invisible and undefined by the laws of the universe is nothing but futility.

I will not respond to you again, because I refuse to discuss with people who elevate themselves without a cause and are not interested in a fair debate or in knowing the truth in the first place.

 

[com7fy8]

Why is God invisible? was asked in the original post. If He were visible, it might be hard to see anything else so we could get food and not drop in a hole or something. But this, I would say, is not the "reason" "why" God is "invisible".

He is a spiritual being who cannot be seen with physical eyes. It is like how you can not detect many things, even things physical, with your bodily senses. Radio waves are not detected by our bodies' senses, for only one example.

But, spiritually, with our spirit which is not physical, we can relate with God in His love.

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

God proves this by doing this with us

 

[Davian]

Who said possibilities require definitions? Furthermore, for a human to attempt to define God who is invisible and undefined by the laws of the universe is nothing but futility.

Then your previous declaration of this undefined thing being possible is incoherent.

I will not respond to you again, because I refuse to discuss with people who elevate themselves without a cause and are not interested in a fair debate

I am interested in fair debate, but you do realize that a fair debate would require for you to provide evidence for your assertions?

or in knowing the truth in the first place.

I am interested in exploring reality, not "truth" that is actually just "religion".

 

[WoundedDeep]

I am interested in fair debate, but you do realize that a fair debate would require for you to provide evidence for your assertions?

Who promised you fair?

Either I misunderstood you, or you just contradicted yourself. You have provided zero evidence for your assertions in the name of "possibilities", while I used historical facts to back up mine (to which you conveniently ignored or denied). That means you already broke the premise of a fair debate. If you are genuinely interested in fair debate, refrain from using possibilities to refute my arguments.

I am interested in exploring reality, not "truth" that is actually just "religion".

Yet you continuously reject the reality of Christian martyrdom which is not only historical, but also continues to happen in the Middle East in the 21st century. Your statements continue to contradict.